CatPilot1

drywhitetoast

CatPilot1

That’s definitely Ted

StoneQOLdCrazy

it’s interesting how you spin everything as a positive. Why is that?

CatPilot1

Target was a client

WHACKMASTER

See, that's the problem with being a big and persistent troll......people won't take you seriously when (if) you're trying to be serious.

Aquaticus

Where did you see that? If they hire a law firm that is capable of bankruptcy proceedings it is 3-4 weeks. That kind of announcement would radically change the options market and I don’t see it yet. It also could be posturing for the negotiations with bond holders but less likely.

Jdub2

the Richard Pryor Problem

VDemerest

Let me make this crystal clear: I mistakenly gave *airliners.net* more credit than it deserves—it is far from reputable. My son, who flies for a Part 121 carrier here in the U.S. and is in his 30s, informed me it’s nothing more than the “4chan of the skies for flightless chuds.” Now, let me stop you there: I have no earthly idea what a "flightless chud" is, and frankly, I don’t care to find out. But after subjecting myself to the cesspool that is 4chan for less than a minute, I now fully grasp my son's accurate comparison. The parallels are glaring: anti-social nonsense, unhinged hypothetical ramblings, and a steady stream of keyboard warriors who, without doubt, live in their mothers' basements. I will never—*never*—waste my time engaging with those morons again.

Airliners.net is a cesspool of drivel, garbage, and mind-numbing repetition. Dozens upon dozens of the same idiotic questions, asked repeatedly by people who wouldn’t recognize a fact if it slapped them in the face. If I have to see one more post longing for the return of Eastern, Pan Am, or TWA, or hear the same questions that were answered back in the '70s, I might just volunteer to walk into a running jet engine myself. I’ve pulled myself out of that gutter, and trust me, it’s the dead-end of the airline business. Not worth a single second of my time. That said, I do appreciate your recognition of my experience and knowledge, which, as you can see, won’t be wasted on those nitwits.

Now, let’s circle back to our Fire Extinguisher friend: He claims that a simple visitor log—what he called a "sign-in sheet"—proves that Eliott was on the premises, based on the entry, and I quote: "The sign-in sheet at the front desk said ‘Elliott Management". Yet, curiously, he fails to provide any actual *names* linked to this mysterious "Eliott" entry. If he can so clearly read "Eliott" in pen and ink, then surely, our Fire Extinguisher friend could also offer the names associated with those granted access, right? But no, not a peep.

Now, here’s where it gets even murkier: If Eliott Management was indeed on-site, who was their guide? Who, exactly, was responsible for escorting one of the most significant multi-billion-dollar investment firms through the campus of a brand-new, state-of-the-art, multi-million-dollar training facility—the newest in the USA? This isn’t the kind of place you pass off to some junior executive that no one’s heard of or that a seasoned pilot would not recognize. Are we now expected to believe this multi-billion-dollar firm was shown around the training center by a staff accountant? If he did not see Ted, Bendo, Canfield or Cromer, he must have seen the ghost of Ned Homfeld. This whole narrative smells like a fume event. Someone pull the fire handle on his halon bottle; discharge and extinguish.

hoover

you never disappoint me. I said that in admiration.